Friday, January 20, 2006

Looked a little more closely at some of the available information, which is not much at this point, but I think the Feebs did not ask for the IPs of the persons making the searches. That shows some modicum of common sense. However, I am not at all assured by that fact alone. My "inner-Libertarian" is really not amused by this.

What is to stop them from asking for the IPs?

Truth be known, there probably is no legal protection here. As asked in reference to the NSA surveillances, what expectation of privacy does anyone have on the internet? If you have a lick of sense, not much.

But that is not the issue. Just because the government can do something does not mean they should do something. Some things are just a violation of our values and ways of doing things. Should I not be able to do a search without thinking the government is, or might be, watching?

They could do this, data mine as it were, just in the hopes that they might find someone doing something wrong without having had a hint that person was doing something wrong before they snooped.

Folks, that bothers me. That bothers me a lot. And that they do this in the name of "protecting children" only makes it all the more reprehensible.

I just deleted my intial post on this subject and now that I have calmed down A BIT, I will start again.

It seems the Feebs at Justice think it is just a wonderful idea to issue a blanket subpoena of all searches for one week on all the major search engines (Google et al) to test how much porn is being accessed. No probable cause. no pending prosecution and no threat to national security. Just your basic good old fashioned fishing expedition.

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. (GOOG) for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Am I the only one that sees a HUGE problem with this?

Over the last couple of weeks I have posted multiple defenses of the NSA surveillance of possible terrorist communications. The Lefties were having a collective heart attack over this reasonable and necessary action by the government. There was reason to suspect the folks being surveiled were up to no good. The government had identified people they suspected of being a threat to our national security.

Al-Jazeera aired an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden on Thursday, saying al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offering a truce to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan.

The voice on the tape said heightened security measures in the United States are not the reason there have been no attacks there since the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings.

Instead, the reason is "because there are operations that need preparations, and you will see them," he said.

"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."

The speaker did not give conditions for a truce in the excerpts aired by the Arab broadcaster.

John Kerry will now call for a formal armistice signing with Bin Laden. I predict that it will take less than 24 hours for the Left to start calling for us to comply with OBL's request and withdraw.... the rationale will be that we've "won" and we don't want to suffer another attack.

This DU post takes 3 comments before ARC's 1st Law rears its ugly head - suggesting that this is a Rovian ploy.

30. Yep, an election year. So pretty soon it'll be time for the old colored

terror alerts. Haven't had any of them since the election either ~

Whenever I hear about Osama tapes, I think of the Chevy Chase movie where they bought the house in the country and the realtor with the help of the locals, made sure there was a deer running through the property when they came to look at the house. 'Cue the deer' ~

'Cue the Osama tape' ~'Cue the terror alerts' ~

I wonder if anyone, other than freepers, falls for this anymore? No one I know does, including Republicans. It's just become part of everyday life now. Like predictions of bad storms, that sometimes happen and sometimes don't.

*** Brian adds ***Looks like the Saint beat me to it. Thats what I get for IM'ing him before posting. Just for that I changed the title to correspond with my argument. So there!

My first thought is this is brilliant strategy on the part of OBL. He can get the anti-war left further on his side by offering "a surrender" that pulls at the paleocon base of Bush in the "just leave everyone alone crowd". I never thought that OBL could do such a strategic move however, since without a show of strength he cannot recruit and maintain new members.

If you look closely at the media reports of the tape, however, it appears that his actual "truce" is nothing of the sort. Thats spin. His truce essentially amounts to, "Leave me alone or I shall be forced to do something really really really bad".

To put this in proper perspective, imagine, that as the US crossed the Rhine and was moving into German proper, Hitler had said to the allied powers, "Ok, if you guys promise to go back to England, and let me keep France, Austria, Poland, etc., I promise to not really really hurt you guys and fight back."

This tape is a sign of weakness. It's a sign that we are winning, that Bush's strategy in Iraq is putting a strain on the ability of Al Queda to further conduct operations. He needs to be left alone to rebuild his army and dominate the region again. He see's that freedom is penetrating into the fear societies that have traditionally been in the region and that is detrimental to the patriarchal Caliphate (read Empire) that is his ultimate goal.

I'm surprised at the DU reaction. They haven't read the offer obviously. They are reacting to "new OBL tape" and not "truce". I predict that as Saint points out the DUers will use this as a way to say it's over, we've won! So stop "wasting [money]... on the merchants of war."

*** Further update: Brian ***

JPod at the corner points to OBL's previous offer of a "truce":

YET ANOTHER BIN LADEN 'TRUCE' [John Podhoretz]This isn't the first time that Bin Laden has offered America a "deal." In the Bin Laden tape released a few days before the November 2004 election, he essentially offered a separate peace deal to U.S. states that voted against the president: "Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security," he said, according to the invaluable translation by Yigal Carmon of the Middle East Media Research Institute. This wasn't much noted at the time because the sentence was originally mistranslated by U.S. media sources to suggest Bin Laden was offering a truce to other nations, not the 50 states of the Union.Posted at 11:17 AM

That's the first I had heard of that particular translation. Which makes sense really, since it was timed to influence the election.

Comparing the two statements, it's interesting how OBL honestly thinks we're afraid of him. That he can issue a threat and cause us to abandon our efforts to date. That we have no stomach for battle. I wonder where he would get that sort of idea.

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

As a result, the discussion appears to have morphed from the initial seal-the-dome approach (which merely addresses the symptoms of a disease) to a much different and more promising one: address the underlying disease itself. And that disease, conservatives agree, is the ever-expanding size and scope of our federal government. As long as Congress keeps growing government, the lobbyists (and their resources) will continue to try to milk the system for more and more.

Two weeks in, conservatives have begun to coalesce around policies that will remove the incentive lobbyists now have to invest unfathomable amounts of money in garnering the attention of lawmakers and their staffs. Among the promising ideas being floated:

End the practice, known as earmarking, of sending taxpayer dollars to specific entities for the narrowest of purposes;

Reform the budget process so that the deck is no longer stacked against lawmakers who want to reduce the level of spending;

Sunset all federal programs so that dysfunctional programs do not live on indefinitely;

Revive proposals from the heady days of the Gingrich-Armey Revolution that would prevent recipients of federal largesse from lobbying Congress;

Breathe life into a moribund House rule that, if it were ever enforced, would require witnesses before congressional committees to reveal any and all federal funds flowing to their organizations.

My guess is that this shift in the response to the Abramoff scandal has not been lost on the 231 GOP House members who will soon return to Washington and elect their next majority leader. To the extent that House Republicans rally around reforms that address the diseased state of our budget and appropriations processes, they can seize the same moral high ground they once occupied during those early days of the GOP revolution

As discussed in this ARC post, it seems that the GOP has taken the Democratic offer to change the "culture of corruption," but perhaps not in the way that the Dems would have wanted them to. While I doubt that the size of the federal government could ever be reduced to its original intended size (and thus reduce those seeking to influence policy makers), the measures being considered are a good step in the right direction.

These are the most cynical of times. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say something that's likely to earn me some ridicule even from people who side with me ideologically.

I saw and heard some of Al Gore's Martin Luther King Day speech on C-Span this afternoon. I was moved. Somewhere along the way, in his five years in the shadows, Gore has acquired (in addition to a few pounds) a feel for public eloquence. If you set aside the popular image of Gore as a loser -- remembering of course that he acquired that image in the 2000 Presidential election in which he won the popular tally by 500,000 votes -- the man has found a way to express the indignation that many of us feel at the way the Bush administration has attempted to distort the Constitution and emasculate Congress and the Courts. Lately I'm reading everything I can get my hands on to try to understand how the administration is conducting this coup...and strangely enough, Gore captures this better than anyone.[...]It isn't just the words. I'm not ashamed to say Al Gore has learned to speak, in a way that gets to me. Damn it, Gore looks like a President. Even as I was readying myself to vote for him in 2000, I'd never have said that; then, he was just the default Democrat, a windy, over-rehearsed, tone-deaf technocrat, but still a far better choice than the fool the Republicans had nominated.

Now, I'm ready to suggest that Al Gore be taken seriously if he chooses to try again in 2008. Yes, I realize that the Republicans have already begun flogging their smarmy talking point about the Clinton administration's investigation in the Robert Hanssen spying case, and that this is one way they would swift-boat Gore. I don't think it will wear well over an entire election cycle. There's just not enough there, and it invites a comparison that will blow back on the next Republican apologist.

Now, one thing I can say with absolute certitude is this: the NSA story has apparently lost its legs. How do I know this? Because Algore has now picked up that issue and as history will point out, he has the absolutely worst political vision in the Democratic Party, waiting until something has reached its zenith and THEN jumping on the bandwagon. Once he touches an issue, it dies a horrible death. Case in point: See his endorsement of Howard Dean in the Democratic primary. I'm sure that he saw all of the press about Dean and believed that it was a sure thing. A few days later, Dean gets trounced.

Algore in 2008? Sure, that'd be a great idea (for the GOP). When I read Algore's comments, the first thing that came to my mind was "Thank God this man didn't become President."

Let's look at the politics of the NSA surveillance - not the legality of it, which I think Jeff Goldstein at ProteinWisdom has demonstrated that the President has operated within his legal bounds, even within the bounds of the FISA statute. No, politically this only benefits Republicans. What's the worst thing for the Republican's chances in 2006? That the base isn't energized and pissed off at the direction of the party - see spending, immigration (on which I think both the base and the party are wrong), the continuing grind in Iraq, etc. What happens as the Dems escalate the rhetoric, calling for withdrawal from Iraq (which a majority of Americans recognize would be a mistake) and attacking Bush's use of technology to thwart multiple terrorist attacks. They see the Dems and the attorneys for Al Qaeda terrorists caught on the battlefield or en route to detonate a dirty bomb whine about such technology and come to the following realization:

"Yeah, spending is out of control and I'm not happy about any number of things, but the Democrats are absolutely insane when it comes to preventing another 9/11."

As Nancy Pelosi pointed out in San Francisco, most Dems recognize that the NSA kerfluffle is not about impeachment, but about electoral politics. This shows that they're not serious about our civil liberties AND our national security. Reintroducing national security into the 2006 mid-term while at the same time reinforcing the stereotype of the Democratic party on the matter only benefits the GOP. Perhaps Algore did not get the message, but the fact that he's jumped onto the bandwagon shows that this issue isn't a winner.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

MISSOURI SEN. Bill Alter, R-High Ridge, wants to ban the sale of cold beer in convenience stores. Any storekeeper who sells a cold one could have his liquor license lifted. Beer-to-go would be kept at 60 degrees or warmer.

Even by the standards of the Missouri Legislature, this is remarkably dumb idea.

Oh, we understand the impulse - save the weak-willed from temptation. Turning a cold-and-frosty into a warm-and-nasty might cut down on drunk driving. And look at all the energy it will save: thousands of convenience stores will raise the thermostats in their coolers from 35 to 60 degrees.

On the other hand, most drunk drivers are already drunk before they get into their vehicles. And if they're really drunk, they won't notice that the beer is warm. For the 99 percent of customers who are responsible consumers, the warm-beer bill is a nanny-state nuisance. What's next? Why not mandate warm low-calorie beer? We'd bring on a healthy shrinking of beer bellies from Cape Girardeau to St. Joseph.

Sen. Alter - Warm Beer Bill to his friends - said the idea came from an 11-year-old constituent. That's who nannies are for.

As a former police officer, I suppose State Sen. Alter has some anecdotal evidence regarding cold beer being an inticement to drive drunk. However, as the P-D points out, this likely won't have an impact on those that are already drunk - or if it does, the only impact will be that they will have coolers in their car.

I would be interested to know the party breakdown on this issue... Could the state Dem party ride this to the November elections, with the rallying cry of "Cold Beer for All!!!"? It's probably more likely that the liberal wing of the Missouri Democratic Party thinks this is just a grand old idea... but it would be interesting to find out.

I'd just be ticked that I'd have to wait that extra hour or so after bringing my beer home before I'd be able to enjoy it while watching the RamsCardsBlues Tigers!!!

Another thought that Alter might consider is the banning of single-can beer sales (the 24 and 36 oz cans). If someone's going to drink a beer while driving, by golly they should have a whole 6-pack (or more!) in the car to make sure they get heavily intoxicated.

Perhaps the most effective way to combat drunk driving is to take a multi-faceted approach. Similar to the Meth ephedrine law here in Missouri, people purchasing beer would have to show ID, log their purchase into a little book that's kept behind the counter, implement a time release opening system for cans of beer that's based on the time it takes for the purchase to travel from the store in which the beer was purchased to their residence (which would be kept on file). Alternatively, a GPS system could be used to only allow beer consumption within 200 feet of someone's home or after the beer has stopped moving for 30 minutes. Finally, Alter could increase spending on police, so that there'd be enough officers to tail each and every beer purchaser in the state to their home, insuring that a can was not opened in transit.

"Shallow Throat" joined me at a mostly-deserted park in Virginia, red-faced and shaking with anger. I didn't even have to ask a question before the rage exploded out:

"I can't believe your Democrat friends are blowing it once again! The Bushies are imploding in one scandal after another, it's dictator-time, the GOP in Congress is tarred by the Abramoff corruption brush, more attacks on Mideast countries are coming soon, Bush ordered spying on Americans with no court permission, impeachment momentum is in the air - and the Dems have let the President off the hook once again! How many times are you going to push that boulder up the steep hill to the top and then let it roll back down again? Do you liberals really have a death-wish?"

Normally, I have to contact the secretive GOP mole high up in the Bush Administration, but this time Shallow Throat came looking for me. To vent, to explode, to dish. [...] "No, no, you're missing the point. Your Democrat friends - MoveOn.org, Democratic pols, liberal pundits - always miss the point. They're great when they finally decide to hone in on something, usually minor, but they constantly miss the big picture, and rarely have a world-view, a philosophy, even a sense of what their political enemies are trying to do to them. No wonder you guys lose elections - wait, before you call me on that last one, I'll admit: balloting fraud helps, too."

"So what is the 'big picture' here? What did the Democrats ignore?"

THE UNITARY DICTATORSHIP

"The reality they're missing is that Bush & Co. long ago declared war on our democratic institutions, and the liberals pretend that it never really happened. Bush & Co. have set themselves up as a dictatorship, where, under an extreme interpretation of 'the unitary executive' theory, the president can violate whatever laws he wishes whenever he wishes, totally negating the Legislative Branch's lawmaking and oversight powers. They've been doing this in secret for years - using the 'national security' dodge when carrying out and condoning torture, domestic spying on citizens' emails and phone calls and so on - and now, thanks only to some whistleblower friends of mine inside the Administration, the whole rotten, stinking pile is out in the open. [...]TAKE DISSENT TO THE NEXT LEVEL

"Think creatively!" shouted Shallow Throat. "If the Democrats truly and sincerely believe America and the Constitution are in imminent danger from this wild, power-hungry crew in the White House - and, believe me, you guys only have seen the tip of the iceberg as to how bad it is - they can't keep behaving in the normal manner. [...]

I then point to five things that I think the Left should do to "take dissent to the next level" from increasing their attacks on Alito (which has been so politically successful) and filibustering him (which would sink their chances in 2006 of regaining either chamber), to having sit-ins outside the White House like some hippie love-fest.

Notably, it's likely that my little conversation with the Crisis Papers will have influence within the Democratic Party. As we've often mentioned here, there's little difference between the conspirazoid, Moonbats at DU, DailyKos, and MoveOn.Org and the DNC Chair (or their last two presidential candidates for that matter).

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."²

This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.

With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:

My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Well, this post has been on my plate for some time... But with all of the other issues of the day, it's been pushed to the bottom of the pile. Given that it's a new year, I really shouldn't put it off any more.

It's time to update our Lefty Moonbat blogroll.

Since this blog started in February of 2005, we've been listing a few of the main and lower tier blogs that are great sources for moonbat hysteria on a daily basis. Well, I'm sad that I have to announce that several of our favorites have ceased posting.

DownLeftOne of the first Lefty Moonbats to visit our site and engage us in debate was DownLeft (affectionately referred to here sa "Downer"). Downer's goal for the blog was to discuss "progressive" politics in downstate Illinios - thus the title of DownLeft. Apparently well connected with Dem pols (always seemed to be keeping track of who was running in the Dem primary for dog catcher), Downer was always willing to engage in a debate over the WOT, the illegal war in Iraq (apparently they're different wars in his (her?) mind), why May Day wasn't a more celebrated event here in the US, etc. It was always spirited and Downer's political and partisan use of Memorial Day really did set me off. It was in stark contrast to this post of mine regarding the same subject. Downer - We bid you adieu...

Hillary!NowNext to leave the blogosphere was Jamie at StopHerNow.blogspot.com For some reason, she registered this address, but the title of her blog was "Hillary! Now." Upon inquiry, she informed me that she wanted to reserve the address so those wascally republicans wouldn't take it - now that's thinking ahead (although a little twisted). Jamie was very partisan, but we often engaged in spirited, but very amiable debates. She recognized the humor intended in the title of this blog and wasn't afraid to engage us in debates here or on her blog. Jamie's last post said that she was looking for an "out" so she could focus on other things and due to the increase in the number of pro-Hillary blogs now, she felt that her presence was no longer required. Jamie - It was fun and we enjoyed your blog.

So, with those two blogs removed from the Moonbat Lefties blogroll, it's time to revisit the blogs we link to. Here are the current blogs on the roll:

Bitch Ph.D. - Whatever you do, don't apply a social construct to this ultra-feminist blogger.

Ted Rall - Sick and twisted bastard who gets paid by newspapers across the country for cartoons that my 3 year old could draw

We're also going to remove MoveOn.Org, being that they're not much of a blog and I might as well just link to the DNC website given the similarity of message. (Something about Bought the Party & Now We Own It springs to mind.)

N.Z. Bear at The Truth Laid Bear is getting the blogosphere to pressure GOP in Congress to revert to their reform-minded roots. Unfortunately, the House leadership has moved away from these roots shortly after Gingrich left as majority leader. The Hammer, while being a great Whip, was not an appropriate choice for majorty leader. The skills required to keep party members in line aren't exactly the same as those required to set a strategic policy vision.

We here at ARC back this push and look forward to a reform-minded agenda for the GOP. As I've mentioned here before, the best way to reform lobbying and special interest involvement in the federal government is to get the federal government out of people's lives - since it's this very involvement which motivates individuals to pool their resources to lobby the government. Until we have a limited government with clear and distinct boundaries, reform will only be focused on the margins.